This document is available in two
formats: this web page (for browsing content) and PDF (comparable to original document formatting). To view the PDF you will need
Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. For an official signed copy, please contact the
Antitrust Documents Group.

FILED
- GR
June 2, 2009 12:35 PM

TRACEY
CORDES, CLERK
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
BY: EC/

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
----------------------

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRADLEY JAMES HANSEN,

Defendant.

/

No.

Hon.

Filed:

1:09-cr-162

Janet T. Neff
U.S. District Judge

June 2, 2009

INDICTMENT

The Grand Jury charges:

COUNT 1(Conspiracy to Commit Offenses Against the United
States)

1. From in or about July 2001, and continuing at least through June
14, 2004, in the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, and
elsewhere, the Defendant,

BRADLEY JAMES HANSEN,

and unindicted Coconspirator A did knowingly and willfully combine,
conspire, and agree together to commit offenses against the United States,
that is,

Defendant, being an agent of the Montcalm Area Intermediate School
District ("MAISD"), which received benefits of over $10,000 in a one-year
period under a Federal program involving a subsidy or other form of
Federal assistance, corruptly accepted and agreed to accept certain
free goods and services from unindicted Coconspirator A, valued at
approximately $60,000, intending to be influenced and rewarded in
connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions
of MAISD involving MAISD's procurement and receipt of Internet services
involving $5,000 or more and subsidized in part by the Federal E-Rate
Program, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a)(1)(B);

Defendant and unindicted Coconspirator A devised and attempted to
devise a scheme and artifice to defraud and deprive MAISD and the
citizens of Michigan of the right to Defendant's honest services,
performed free from deceit, favoritism, bias, self-enrichment, self-dealing,
concealment, and conflict of interest, and, for the purpose of executing
or attempting to execute the scheme and artifice to defraud and deprive,
Defendant knowingly caused to be sent and delivered by mail according
to the directions thereon, a package containing a Services Ordered
and Certification Form 471 sent to the Schools and Libraries Division
of the Universal Service Administrative Company sent via the United
States Postal Service on or about January 14, 2002, which scheme is
described more fully below, in violation of Title 18, United States
Code, Sections 1341 and 1346.

BACKGROUND

At all times relevant to this Indictment, unless otherwise indicated:

2. MAISD is an agency of state government, whose offices are located
at 621 New Street, Stanton, Michigan 48888.

3. From approximately October 1993, to January 1, 2003, Defendant
was an agent of MAISD, serving as its Superintendent.

4. In his position as Superintendent of MAISD, Defendant owed a duty
to MAISD and the citizens of Michigan to provide them with his honest
services in carrying out his job responsibilities. Defendant's responsibilities
included, but were not limited to, the procurement of Internet access
and related technology services by entering into contracts with service
providers on behalf of MAISD.

5. MAISD's policy manual, in effect at the time of Defendant's employment,
provided, among other prohibitions, that "[n]o employee of [MAISD] will
accept gifts from any person, group or entity doing, or desiring to
do, business with the district." (MAISD Policy 403(5)).

6. In each one year period material to this Indictment, MAISD received
benefits in excess of $10,000 under Federal programs. Among its sources
of Federal grants and assistance, MAISD received funding from the E-Rate
Program. The Federal government created the E-Rate Program to provide
subsidies to schools and libraries for use in obtaining Internet access
and other telecommunications services. The E-Rate Program is administered
by the Schools and Libraries Division ("SLD") of the Universal Service
Administrative Company ("USAC").

7. E-Rate Program rules require that E-Rate Program applicants, such
as MAISD, seek competitive bids, and follow state and local laws concerning
competitive bidding when procuring services that will be subsidized
by the E-Rate Program, in order to ensure that such services are obtained
at competitive prices.

8. Once an applicant, such as MAISD, completes the competitive bidding
process pursuant to state and local law and E-Rate Program rules, the
applicant may choose a vendor to provide the services for which it is
seeking funding through the E-Rate Program. The applicant notifies the
SLD of its chosen vendor and requests E-Rate Program funding to be applied
toward that vendor's services using Federal Communications Commission
("FCC") Form 471, the "Services Ordered and Certification Form." At
the time Defendant was responsible for procuring Internet access and
related technology services on behalf of MAISD, the Form 471 required
an E-Rate Program applicant to certify, among other things, that it
has "complied with all applicable state and local laws regarding procurements
of services for which support is being sought," and that it "has complied
with all program rules and . . . that failure to do so may result in
denial of discount funding and/or cancellation of funding commitments."
Such certifications were to be mailed to the SLD in Lawrence, Kansas.

9. Unindicted Coconspirator A was the owner of Company A, which is
in the business of providing Internet access and related technology
services. Company A provided services to MAISD which were subsidized
by the E-Rate Program, and Company A received over $1.1 million from
the E-Rate Program for providing subsidized Internet access to MAISD.
In addition, Company A received over $500,000 from MAISD toward these
services during this time period.

10. Whenever in this Count reference is made to any act, deed, or
transaction of Company A, such allegation shall be deemed to mean that
Company A engaged in such act, deed, or transaction by or through its
officers, agents, employees, or representatives, including Coconspirator
A, while they were actively engaged in the management, direction, control,
or transaction of its business or affairs.

MANNER AND MEANS OF THE CONSPIRACY

11. It was part of the conspiracy of which Defendant was a member
for Defendant to accept and receive certain free goods and services
from unindicted Coconspirator A and Company A, including a "smart home"
electrical system, other home electrical wiring, and appliances valued
at approximately $60,000. These goods and services influenced Defendant
to enter into, and rewarded Defendant for entering into, a three-year
Internet service contract with Company A on behalf of MAISD, as discussed
below in Paragraph 12, and were not disclosed to MAISD.

12. It was also part of the conspiracy of which Defendant was a member
for MAISD to enter into an Internet service contract with Company A
and for Company A to receive payments pursuant to the contract; namely,
a three-year Internet service contract, funded in part by the E-Rate
Program, with a value of over $1.6 million over three years, and signed
by Defendant on behalf of MAISD on or about December 28, 2001, pursuant
to which MAISD would apply for E-Rate Program funds for eligible Internet
services over the course of the contract, and Company A would invoice
and receive payments from MAISD and the SLD, from approximately July
2002 through approximately June 2005. E-Rate Program funding years begin
on July 1st and end on June 30th of the following calendar year.

13. It was also part of the conspiracy of which Defendant was a member
to defraud and deprive MAISD and the citizens of Michigan of their intangible
right to Defendant's honest services through, among other means, Defendant's
acceptance and receipt of certain free goods and services from Coconspirator
A and Company A, which are described in more detail above in Paragraph
11. Unbeknownst to MAISD, Defendant accepted these goods and services
for his own personal benefit in connection with an agreement to enter
into the three-year Internet service contract referenced above in Paragraph
12.

OVERT ACTS

During the course of this conspiracy, in furtherance of the conspiracy
and to effect the objects of the conspiracy and also in furtherance
of concealment of the conspiracy at least one of the following overt
acts, among others, was committed by one or more of the conspirators:

14. Between approximately July 2001 and March 2002, unindicted Coconspirator
A offered, and Defendant agreed to accept, certain free goods and services
referenced above in Paragraph 11, valued at approximately $60,000, from
Company A, intending to be influenced and rewarded in connection with
Defendant's signing of the three-year Internet service contract referenced
above in Paragraph 12.

15. On or about December 28, 2001, Defendant signed the three-year
Internet service contract referenced above in Paragraph 12. MAISD's
obligation to make payments for Internet access under the three-year
Internet service contract was not conditioned on the SLD's approval
of E-Rate Program funding toward this service, therefore, MAISD was
required to make payments to Company A whether or not the E-Rate Program
subsidized a portion of the service.

16. Without disclosing to MAISD or the SLD the approximately $60,000
worth of free goods and services referenced above in Paragraph 11, which
Defendant accepted and received for his own personal benefit from Company
A, on or about January 14, 2002, Defendant signed a Services Ordered
and Certification Form 471 and caused it to be submitted by U.S. mail
to the SLD. Defendant signed such Form 471 in order to begin the approval
process for E-Rate Program funding to be applied toward MAISD's Internet
access from Company A, which was provided pursuant to the three-year
Internet service contract referenced above in Paragraph 12.

17. On or about September 17, 2002, Defendant signed a ten-year tower
lease agreement with Company A effective until September 17, 2012, pursuant
to which Company A was permitted to occupy the top fifteen feet of four
towers owned by MAISD during the term of the lease, and was granted
the exclusive right to use certain unlicensed frequencies to the exclusion
of other vendors. The signing of this ten-year lease agreement helped
to lock-in Company A as MAISD's Internet service provider by making
it more difficult for other vendors to compete effectively with Company
A to provide Internet access at reasonable prices to MAISD, not only
during the term of the three-year Internet service contract referenced
above in Paragraph 12, but until the exclusive agreement expires in
2012.

18. On approximately December 17, 2003, after MAISD began investigating
the three-year Internet service contract referenced above in Paragraph
12, and the tower lease agreement referenced above in Paragraph 17,
Defendant and unindicted Coconspirator A concealed from MAISD the approximately
$60,000 worth of free goods and services referenced above in Paragraph
11 to ensure that Company A would continue to receive payments under
the three-year Internet service contract. To continue this concealment,
unindicted Coconspirator A provided Defendant with an invoice for $60,000
dated December 17, 2003, purportedly for the "smart home" electrical
system, other home electrical wiring, and appliances, which invoice
Defendant paid by check on or about the same date. Neither Defendant
nor Coconspirator A revealed the true nature of the $60,000 transaction
to MAISD or the SLD.

19. Coconspirator A and Company A periodically invoiced MAISD and
the SLD, and accepted the resulting payments, between approximately
July 2002 through approximately June 2005, for Internet access subsidized
through the E-Rate Program under the three-year Internet service contract
referenced above in Paragraph 12. Such payments that Company A received
and accepted included a check from MAISD to Company A in the amount
of $14,019.90, dated June 9, 2004, which was deposited in Company A's
bank account on or about June 14, 2004.

18 U.S.C. § 371

In Count 2, the Grand Jury incorporates specifically and by reference,
as if restated and realleged herein, each of the foregoing allegations
and assertions contained within Count 1.

COUNT 2(Obstruction)

On or about September 14, 2007, in the Western District of Michigan,
Southern Division, the Defendant,

BRADLEY JAMES HANSEN,

corruptly attempted to obstruct, influence, and impede an official
proceeding, that is a Federal grand jury investigation regarding potentially
fraudulent E-Rate Program applications, when he falsely stated to an
attorney employed by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department
of Justice that the reason he delayed approximately two years before
paying the $60,000 discussed above in Paragraph 18 was a dispute between
Defendant and Coconspirator A concerning the work performed by Coconspirator
A and Company A and the price charged to Defendant for the work.